In the Lindy Chamberlain murder case only I noted that Lindy was allowed to go home and look after her other children between her trials despite the risk that she would murder them too. The public never thought of this because they’d come to two separate conclusions, one that she was innocent, and two, that she should be punished anyway, possibly because she was a Seventh Day Adventist.
This was also the case with O.J. Simpson, who would not have hacked off his wife’s head, or nearly, while his children were sleeping upstairs, and left her body where they would find her in the morning, and get unbloodied into a car with no bloodstains in it, and fly to another town almost immediately, with no time to wash the car or his clothes or burn them. They knew he was innocent but felt he should be punished, like Othello, for being a big black man with a beautiful white unfaithful wife.
It was also the case with Strauss-Kahn: they knew mouth-rape was impossible without a lethal weapon, but felt he should be deprived of the French Presidency anyway.
In the case of Craig Thomson they know he saw no hooker, because her name and face and testimony has not been supplied, yet they think he should be kicked out of parliament because that would, or could, bring the Government down or ‘overshadow’ their good Budget, a Budget that might save them.
Where is the girl, or girls? Will she testify it was him she saw? Why would she not put her hand up? It was a legal transaction, in a town where prostitution was legal, policed and health-checked. Where is she?
Once again we have this phenomenon, a simultaneous belief in innocence and punishment, in punishing the innocent (like the children of boat people) for a larger, higher cause, the victory of the Murdochist filth-battalions over civilised reasoning on this continent.
That cause has been joined by nearly all the journalists. Why have they not found the girl? A couple of enquiries would do it.
The reason is it would help Craig Thomson.
And that would never do.
I await a sensational Laurie Oakes interview of the girl who was paid twelve hundred dollars, about what she thought of Craig and what they did together.
It could happen tomorrow.
The fact is, she doesn’t exist.
If she did, she would put her hand up. For, like Chantelois, an interview. And like Monica Lewinski describe his member.
She doesn’t exist.
I await proof that she does.
She is not a person, she is a figure of speech.